<div> </div>
<div>Dick Morris's analysis is grossly oversimplified and panders to historical and political stereotypes and inaccuracies. The numerous and overly broad references to "the left" in the Democratic party are typical of the button pushing labeling of those who oppose the Iraq war being pushed into an ideological corner to marginalize their position. The opposition to Bush's Iraq policies are now becoming far less of a partisan dominated orientation, rendering the lumping of those who forcefully oppose Bush's Iraq plan as "leftists" a disservice to an objective rational fact based analysis of the war that will best serve the interests of all in the USA.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Morris writes:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">"So the Democrats are about to form their customary firing squad - a circular one - and begin again the battles that ripped their party apart in the late 1960s. The battle lines are the same: The New Left vs. The Party Establishment. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are about to squander their credibility with their supporters on the left by failing to cut back - or cut off entirely - funding for the war."
</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course there are divisions in the Democratic party over Bush's planned escalation in Iraq, with some wanting much more aggressive action against Bush's plan. But the Republican party at this time is also seeing a split along these lines, with many Republicans openly and aggressively opposing Bush's Iraq policies. Does this make them leftists? And if not, why label the many mainstream Democrats who vehemently oppose Bush's policies "leftist," at least when describing their views on this critical issue?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>When current Idaho governor Butch Otter voted with Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has been called the first Socialist member of the US Congress, to oppose the Patriot Act, did this make Otter a Socialist? Is it not possible for Americans to be united in opposition to a war without this opposition being labeled "left wing" or "right wing?" Do views on all issues have to fit stereotypical partisan political agendas? Info on Otters vote with Sanders:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200309%5CNAT20030925a.html">http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200309%5CNAT20030925a.html</a></div>
<div>---------</div>
<div>Pelosi and Reid may very well not be able to cut off funding for the Iraq war, if indeed they attempt this, but I doubt this will result in them squandering their credibility, as Morris claims, with Morris's fantasy group of a unified "left" that thinks and acts in lock step.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A lot of the discontent that resulted in the Democratic victories in 2006 were based on the scandals and lies coming from Washington. Oppostion to scandals and lies is shared by those of all political orientations. The recent Democratic victories were not the result of some massive "left wing" power grab, but came in part from a realization among many mainstream Americans that the Iraq war was indeed a mistake, and that continuing the same approach to that war appeared to be making Iraq worse, not better.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Consider Republican Chuck Hagel's comments that I heard on C-Span this past week regarding Bush's planned Iraq war escalation:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/iraq.congress/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/iraq.congress/index.html</a></div>
<div>
<p>"Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska described the move as "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."</p>
<p>Morris also appears to forget in the following comment that massive protests involving tens of thousands in numerous cities across the USA against the immediately pending Iraq war were already held in February 2003, thus discontent with the Democratic Party and whoever else was not listening already did "overflow the bounds of partisan politics and go into the streets:" Info on anti-Iraq war protests:
</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#Other_U.S._cities">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#Other_U.S._cities</a></p>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">Morris wrote:</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">"As long as the Democratic Party could be counted upon to represent the left on Iraq, protests against the war were channeled through the political process and were aimed at electing a Democratic Congress. But now that the Democratic leadership has, in the eyes of the leaders of the left, "betrayed" them, look for protest to overflow the bounds of partisan politics and go into the streets."
</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">Morris also suggests that we will see opposition to the Iraq war like "the 1960s all over again."</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">The massive protests against the Vietnam war in the late 1960s and early '70s were made possible by mainstream political support across partisan lines, in large part due to the US military death toll impacting so many. Morris's
</font>oversimplified and all too easy claim that we will have protests like 1960s protests against the Vietnam war is doubtful, unless the US military death toll rises into the tens of thousands, as it did during the Vietnam war. And of course the Vietnam war era protests were also linked to massive racial unrest of a kind not part of the current cultural landscape.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The May, 1970 killing of four US students at Kent State by US National Guard during an anti-war protest was also a factor. If students on a US campus were killed by US National Guard during a protest of the Iraq war, then we would really find out what protests during the Vietnam war era were like, and the resulting protests would not result just from "the left." Info on Kent State killings, May, 1970:
</div>
<p><a href="http://www.may4.org/?q=node/5">http://www.may4.org/?q=node/5</a></p>
<p><font face="Verdana" size="2">"The left will launch campaigns of civil disobedience, public marches and protests, online petitions, and the like. It will </font><font face="Verdana" size="2">be the 1960s all over again."
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana" size="2">Morris ends his political commentary with this laughable nonsense:</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana" size="2">"Until now, we have had a two-party system in our post 9-11 debates. Now a new entrant is in the field: The New Left."</font></p>
<p>In fact, in the immediate post 9/11 period up till the invasion of Iraq, and for a period after, the political landscape in the USA was dominated by a "one party" approach, with both Democrats and Republicans for the most part supporting Bush's Iraq war agenda. John Kerry, one of Morris's "leftists," voted to support the war. Now there is a new party emerging: Average mainstream Americans who have woken up to the lies, mistakes and scandals of the Bush administration regarding the Iraq war.
</p>
<p>Dick Morris should put that populist reality through his partisan spin filters....</p>
<p>Ted Moffett</p>
<p><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/12/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Tim Lohrmann</b> <<a href="mailto:timlohr@yahoo.com">timlohr@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span></p></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div><em>Dick Morris may be a political prostitute, but he's a smart one.</em></div>
<div>TL<br><br><br><br>THE COMING DEMOCRATIC PARTY CIVIL WAR<br><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60458236.phtml" target="_blank">http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60458236.phtml
</a><br><br><font face="Verdana"> </font></div>
<blockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">January 11, 2006 -- Iraq is not the only place that is threatening to dissolve into the anarchy and bloodletting of a civil war. It's about to happen to the Democratic Party. Reacting to Bush's planned "surge" in troop strength, the Democratic leaders in Congress, savoring their victory, are contemplating taking only symbolic steps to protest Bush's war policies, a timidity that will highly displease their leftist boosters. The liberal activists who funded and impelled the Democratic victory in 2006 did not focus on winning a Congressional majority so that it would take merely symbolic action. Symbolic action would have been appropriate for a minority party, but the backers of a party in the majority expect something more.
<br> <br>So the Democrats are about to form their customary firing squad - a circular one - and begin again the battles that ripped their party apart in the late 1960s. The battle lines are the same: The New Left vs. The Party Establishment. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are about to squander their credibility with their supporters on the left by failing to cut back - or cut off entirely - funding for the war.
</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">The Democratic Party's left wing is not to be trifled with. It is a massive force, fully mobilized, and led by aggressive online organizations such as <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://moveon.org/" target="_blank">
Moveon.org</a>. It has plenty of political leaders - like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry - who are more than willing to articulate fundamental differences with the Party's Congressional leadership and are not shy about doing so.
</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">The Congressional leaders' plan is to give Bush all the rope he needs to hang himself by increasing troop strength in Iraq. They are deeply skeptical about whether more soldiers will accomplish anything besides increasing casualties. But they are not about to take the rap in front of the American people for seeming to sell out our troops by cutting their funding and forcing the Administration to retreat. Nor are they ready for a constitutional confrontation with the Commander-in-Chief over his wartime powers. So, instead, they are going to hold hearings during which a parade of former generals will voice their misgivings and air their disagreements, past and present. It will be like one of Bob Woodward's books enacted on a Congressional stage.
</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">But this theater is not going to appease the left. </font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">They did not elect Democrats to Congress so they could hold hearings. They expect laws not shows. Their frustration will become increasingly apparent as the Cindy Sheehans of the world react to the increased troop commitment in Baghdad. The left will launch campaigns of civil disobedience, public marches and protests, online petitions, and the like. It will be the 1960s all over again.
</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">As long as the Democratic Party could be counted upon to represent the left on Iraq, protests against the war were channeled through the political process and were aimed at electing a Democratic Congress. But now that the Democratic leadership has, in the eyes of the leaders of the left, "betrayed" them, look for protest to overflow the bounds of partisan politics and go into the streets.
</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">One can expect candidates in the Democratic primaries to run to the left seeking to capitalize on the frustration of peace activists at the passivity of the Party's Congressional leaders in the face of Bush's determination to add to troop strength committed to Iraq. Moderate candidates like Barak Obama, John Edwards, and even Hillary Clinton may find themselves outflanked by those more willing to run to the left like Al Gore and John Kerry.
</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">Until now, we have had a two-party system in our post 9-11 debates. Now a new entrant is in the field: The New Left.</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2">***Copyright Eileen McGann and Dick Morris 2006***</font></div></blockquote><span class="ad">
<p>
<hr size="1">
Expecting? Get great news right away with <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49982/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html" target="_blank">
email Auto-Check.</a><br>Try the <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49982/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html" target="_blank">Yahoo! Mail Beta.
</a>
<p></p></p></span><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">
http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>